It was reported earlier today that the ABC sitcom The Neighbors has secured a full-season order. Not to sound like a dick, but that was not a headline I expected to see after viewing the pilot earlier this year. I also have to admit that I didn't anticipate the success of Revolution, which I had pegged as this year's The Event.
When watching a pilot critically, it's important to be able to tell the difference between a weak pilot that has immense potential for growth and a weak pilot that is so misguided that it would be nearly impossible for a series to recover. This year, it seemed like there were a lot of shows that fell into the latter category. I don't want to name names, but most shows of this type were easily distinguished by the unflinching and often amusingly brutal reviews that the critics posted.
I've only kept up with a few new shows this season, so I have to admit I'm curious if anyone stuck with any of the iffier shows and was rewarded with improvement. Did The Neighbors find a way to make the premise play beyond one joke?
666 Park Avenue was another show where the pilot didn't blow me away, but of the new fall shows, it seemed to have some of the strongest potential for improvement, provided the writing staff that was hired figured out a way to develop genuine tension and build to unexpected payoffs. There were the building blocks of a better show there, but the story presented in the pilot was a little too tepid for my tastes.
I also wrote off Guys With Kids because it too seemed to be built around a one-joke premise that was already well-worn territory years ago. Did they find their creative groove or is it just a case of the show being placed in the right timeslot?
So let me know what shows have gotten better since their pilot, and if possible, explain why you think the changes they made facilitated this.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Monday, October 29, 2012
Read MCCARTHY on the Black List site! And an update on the other submissions
Well, I made it through the first 25 scripts that were submitted to my post on Black List 3.0. I have to admit, the response was far beyond anything I expected. I wasn't sure 25 people would even take me up on the offer, let alone the 60+ requests currently sitting in the comment thread of the earlier post.
I want to say right off the bat that I was somewhat impressed with the overall level of writing that I saw in those 25 submissions. I've read for a contest or two and I've got plenty of experience with amateur-level submissions, so a part of me fully expected to be screaming "Oh dear God! Why did I sign up for this!" well before I got through ten submissions. As a group, you guys are far more promising than most of the people submitting to contests and I saw blessedly little of the horrible newbie mistakes that drive me to drink.
Upon reflection, that makes sense. The people responding fastest to my offer were more likely to be regular readers of my blog. Thus, it's a good sign that what I've been bitching about for four years has really sunk in with you people. For starters, I don't think I recall a single gratuitous mention of a woman's cleavage.
Of the 25, I think there might have only been two - perhaps three - scripts where I knew within a few pages that this was going to be a pass. I expected at least a third of the scripts would have me stopping after a few pages to ask, "wait, what did I just read?" So good work in not embarrassing yourselves.
I promised everyone I'd give them ten pages. More than half of you had me intrigued enough to keep going further, just to see if your execution showed signs of living up to your concept, or just to see if you could sustain some of the positives of your script. I'd say at least fifteen of you got me to page 20 and at least 8 of you had me reading past p. 35. I considered announcing which scripts had me reading deeper into them, but I realized that probably wouldn't be helpful. In some cases, it was the concept that kept me going, only for me to realize by p. 60 that things were being developed too conventionally or too slowly. In other cases, a script started with a very strong first act, only to meander in the second act long enough that I knew it wouldn't be a high consider. So I didn't want to leave anyone with the impression "You had me until p. 44, but p. 45 is where you fucked up, so fix that."
This is because I wasn't just looking for "okay" writing, or "decent" writing - I was looking for strong writing. More than that - I was looking for a strong script. After all, giving a good review to the script is like throwing up a flare on that specific idea. Those of you guys with stronger concepts obviously had a distinct advantage here - especially those of you who communicated those concepts well in your logline. Generic or familiar-sounding ideas had me less enthused from the start, but there were plenty of loglines that had me thinking "I can't wait to see how they develop THAT!" (Not coincidentally, those were the writers who often got 30 pages or so to make their case.)
The flip side to this is that there were a number of concepts that faced an uphill battle with me for one reason or another. In some cases, the issue was that the story was just too mundane or "small." In other cases, the factor was a genre I didn't have a particular affinity for. For instance, I'm not a huge Western fan - but at least two Westerns got me to page 25 or further. I bring this up to underline that just because I didn't respond to a particualar idea, it doesn't follow that everyone will be as apathetic.
I was reading these submissions specifically with an eye to finding scripts that would rate at 8, 9 or 10. I wanted to find the real undiscovered gems that could stand up to scrutiny once passed into professional hands. I'm optimistic that there are a lot of 6s in those submissions, and 6s that could easily make it to a rating of 7 or even 8 with some rewriting.
Also, one writer let me know via Twitter that he'd seen a marked uptick in traffic to his script and even heard from an agent after submitting his submission in the comment thread last week. He seemed to believe that there was a direct connection between the two, and while I'd love to crow about that, I've not seen many instances of reps following up on material promoted on my site before. (Having said that, traffic was WAY up on Friday.) But if anyone else has something like that happen, please let us know, okay?
But what you really want to know is did I find that undiscovered gem? Yes - sort of. MCCARTHY by Justin Kremer was the clear winner in this showdown of the first 25 scripts. In some ways I'm surprised and some ways I'm not. This script was spotlit in an email the Black List sent out last week to all their professional users, following a very positive evaluation from one of the Black List readers. Also, the Black List algorithm predicted that I'd rate this script as an 8.3, which is more or less accurate.
Beyond that, I'm not big on political scripts. Despite COLLEGE REPUBLICANS being #1 on the Black List two years ago, I wasn't really a fan of it. So it's not like I'm predisposed to the material - plus I had to look at COLLEGE REPUBLICANS through the marketability lens, and political material is kind of a powder keg these days. My feeling is Repulican viewers would claim that the film was an unfair, propeganda-driven hatchet job on Karl Rove (oh, the irony!) while Democratic viewers would take issue with the fact that it doesn't depict Rove as half the sub-human pond scum we know him to be.
(And if you take issue with that characterization, look up what the man did to John McCain in the 2000 primary election. It was a vile, evil act of race-bating that not only relied on the worst elements of his party, but in fact fed those fires to make those elements a dominating force in that party. I've always loved Cindy McCain for saying, "No, I'd stab him in the front," after being asked if she ever would be tempted to stab Rove in the back.)
But a bio-pic of noted asshole and Senator Joe McCarthy is a different prospect, because nearly everyone with half a brain agrees that McCarthy's anti-Communist witch hunts were an horrific abuse of power and a dark time in our nation's history. (Those lacking that half a brain can be discovered here.) But there's something fascinating about exploring a person who more or less branded himself as a larger-than-life defender of freedom while basically making his name synonymous with the most egregious and repugnant forms of political grandstanding.
This is not only a well-written, well-paced script - it has what every script needs: a fantastic villain. One scene in particular stands out, about 30 pages in, McCarthy's grandstanding has already begun to make waves. A campaigning Dwight Eisenhower is so disgusted by his actions, he doesn't even want to be photographed with him. Instead, the Presidential candidate requests a private meeting with the Senator, during which he essentially says "The fuck?!" and "No, seriously... the fuck?!" He basically tells McCarthy that he doesn't agree with what the Senator stands for and isn't scared to say that in public. He demands McCarthy apologize to the people he's hurt and McCarthy's response can pretty much be translated as, "Eh, bite me" and "Suck it, Ike."
So McCarthy has to introduce Eisenhower at a rally and he does just that and only that. No puffed up speech. No "I endorse this guy." Pretty much "Here he is. He's running for President." And then the amazing thing happens. Eisenhower comes out ... and basically endorses everything that the slimy Senator stands for.
That set of scenes alone ensured that I was gonna stick around to see Jackass Joe run out of town on a rail when the the wheel of fortune eventually turned against him.
Those of you with Black List access can find McCarthy here.
I'll gradually work my way through the other submissions. November's a busy month for me and I know I won't be able to blow through 25 scripts as fast as I did before. I'm still optimistic I can find one really good script that hasn't yet been spot-lit by Black List readers. I recognize that to pull that off, I'm going to need to move fast though. I'll keep you guys updated as I go.
I want to say right off the bat that I was somewhat impressed with the overall level of writing that I saw in those 25 submissions. I've read for a contest or two and I've got plenty of experience with amateur-level submissions, so a part of me fully expected to be screaming "Oh dear God! Why did I sign up for this!" well before I got through ten submissions. As a group, you guys are far more promising than most of the people submitting to contests and I saw blessedly little of the horrible newbie mistakes that drive me to drink.
Upon reflection, that makes sense. The people responding fastest to my offer were more likely to be regular readers of my blog. Thus, it's a good sign that what I've been bitching about for four years has really sunk in with you people. For starters, I don't think I recall a single gratuitous mention of a woman's cleavage.
Of the 25, I think there might have only been two - perhaps three - scripts where I knew within a few pages that this was going to be a pass. I expected at least a third of the scripts would have me stopping after a few pages to ask, "wait, what did I just read?" So good work in not embarrassing yourselves.
I promised everyone I'd give them ten pages. More than half of you had me intrigued enough to keep going further, just to see if your execution showed signs of living up to your concept, or just to see if you could sustain some of the positives of your script. I'd say at least fifteen of you got me to page 20 and at least 8 of you had me reading past p. 35. I considered announcing which scripts had me reading deeper into them, but I realized that probably wouldn't be helpful. In some cases, it was the concept that kept me going, only for me to realize by p. 60 that things were being developed too conventionally or too slowly. In other cases, a script started with a very strong first act, only to meander in the second act long enough that I knew it wouldn't be a high consider. So I didn't want to leave anyone with the impression "You had me until p. 44, but p. 45 is where you fucked up, so fix that."
This is because I wasn't just looking for "okay" writing, or "decent" writing - I was looking for strong writing. More than that - I was looking for a strong script. After all, giving a good review to the script is like throwing up a flare on that specific idea. Those of you guys with stronger concepts obviously had a distinct advantage here - especially those of you who communicated those concepts well in your logline. Generic or familiar-sounding ideas had me less enthused from the start, but there were plenty of loglines that had me thinking "I can't wait to see how they develop THAT!" (Not coincidentally, those were the writers who often got 30 pages or so to make their case.)
The flip side to this is that there were a number of concepts that faced an uphill battle with me for one reason or another. In some cases, the issue was that the story was just too mundane or "small." In other cases, the factor was a genre I didn't have a particular affinity for. For instance, I'm not a huge Western fan - but at least two Westerns got me to page 25 or further. I bring this up to underline that just because I didn't respond to a particualar idea, it doesn't follow that everyone will be as apathetic.
I was reading these submissions specifically with an eye to finding scripts that would rate at 8, 9 or 10. I wanted to find the real undiscovered gems that could stand up to scrutiny once passed into professional hands. I'm optimistic that there are a lot of 6s in those submissions, and 6s that could easily make it to a rating of 7 or even 8 with some rewriting.
Also, one writer let me know via Twitter that he'd seen a marked uptick in traffic to his script and even heard from an agent after submitting his submission in the comment thread last week. He seemed to believe that there was a direct connection between the two, and while I'd love to crow about that, I've not seen many instances of reps following up on material promoted on my site before. (Having said that, traffic was WAY up on Friday.) But if anyone else has something like that happen, please let us know, okay?
But what you really want to know is did I find that undiscovered gem? Yes - sort of. MCCARTHY by Justin Kremer was the clear winner in this showdown of the first 25 scripts. In some ways I'm surprised and some ways I'm not. This script was spotlit in an email the Black List sent out last week to all their professional users, following a very positive evaluation from one of the Black List readers. Also, the Black List algorithm predicted that I'd rate this script as an 8.3, which is more or less accurate.
Beyond that, I'm not big on political scripts. Despite COLLEGE REPUBLICANS being #1 on the Black List two years ago, I wasn't really a fan of it. So it's not like I'm predisposed to the material - plus I had to look at COLLEGE REPUBLICANS through the marketability lens, and political material is kind of a powder keg these days. My feeling is Repulican viewers would claim that the film was an unfair, propeganda-driven hatchet job on Karl Rove (oh, the irony!) while Democratic viewers would take issue with the fact that it doesn't depict Rove as half the sub-human pond scum we know him to be.
(And if you take issue with that characterization, look up what the man did to John McCain in the 2000 primary election. It was a vile, evil act of race-bating that not only relied on the worst elements of his party, but in fact fed those fires to make those elements a dominating force in that party. I've always loved Cindy McCain for saying, "No, I'd stab him in the front," after being asked if she ever would be tempted to stab Rove in the back.)
But a bio-pic of noted asshole and Senator Joe McCarthy is a different prospect, because nearly everyone with half a brain agrees that McCarthy's anti-Communist witch hunts were an horrific abuse of power and a dark time in our nation's history. (Those lacking that half a brain can be discovered here.) But there's something fascinating about exploring a person who more or less branded himself as a larger-than-life defender of freedom while basically making his name synonymous with the most egregious and repugnant forms of political grandstanding.
This is not only a well-written, well-paced script - it has what every script needs: a fantastic villain. One scene in particular stands out, about 30 pages in, McCarthy's grandstanding has already begun to make waves. A campaigning Dwight Eisenhower is so disgusted by his actions, he doesn't even want to be photographed with him. Instead, the Presidential candidate requests a private meeting with the Senator, during which he essentially says "The fuck?!" and "No, seriously... the fuck?!" He basically tells McCarthy that he doesn't agree with what the Senator stands for and isn't scared to say that in public. He demands McCarthy apologize to the people he's hurt and McCarthy's response can pretty much be translated as, "Eh, bite me" and "Suck it, Ike."
So McCarthy has to introduce Eisenhower at a rally and he does just that and only that. No puffed up speech. No "I endorse this guy." Pretty much "Here he is. He's running for President." And then the amazing thing happens. Eisenhower comes out ... and basically endorses everything that the slimy Senator stands for.
That set of scenes alone ensured that I was gonna stick around to see Jackass Joe run out of town on a rail when the the wheel of fortune eventually turned against him.
Those of you with Black List access can find McCarthy here.
I'll gradually work my way through the other submissions. November's a busy month for me and I know I won't be able to blow through 25 scripts as fast as I did before. I'm still optimistic I can find one really good script that hasn't yet been spot-lit by Black List readers. I recognize that to pull that off, I'm going to need to move fast though. I'll keep you guys updated as I go.
Friday, October 26, 2012
I will read your script on the Black List
Okay, I'm about to propose an experiment - and like some experiments there's a chance this could fail.
Several of you have scripts up on the Black List and as we've seen, it can help a script immensely if it gets a positive review. The problem is that it's hard to get people to notice your script before a paid review is complete. Also, there's no guarantee that the paid review will be a positive one. However, in clairfying the way the review metric works, Franklin Leonard revealed something very interesting over at Done Deal Pro:
"Any script that gets a particularly high rating from any individual reviewer can expect that script to get spotlighted to our industry professional members. Practically, if you write a script that gets a 1 from one reader and a 9 from another reader, that script will still be included as part of our email spotlighting recent scripts that got a strong review. Presumably people who are interested in your genre and logline will download it, read it, and rate it, which will then result in your overall rating changing over time based on those members thoughts on your script."
In practical terms, this means the paid reader could HATE your script, but if someone else really likes it, you could still get an endorsement. So here's my offer to you....
I will read the first ten pages of ANY script linked to in the comment of this post. If I think the script has promise beyond those ten pages, I will continue reading until I feel my interest wane. This means that if I get to the end, presumably I'll have a positive impression of your script and I will rate it as such.
The conditions:
1) the link to your script's page on the Black List MUST be in the comments. Do not email me. Do not Tweet me. I will ONLY read scripts publicly pointed out here. Feel free to include a logline or any other information.
2) I will offer no comments on any of the scripts I didn't complete. Don't ask me what you did wrong. Don't ask me for feedback. I doubt I'll have time to respond to everyone, and so to be fair, I will respond to no one.
3) I will be holding all scripts to the same standards as the material I read for my job. There's no such thing as "good for an amateur" on this scale. Scripts will be judged according to how they measure up to professional submissions.
4) This offer is good until noon on Tuesday, October 30. If I get a huge response, it's going to take some time for me to work through these scripts. I'll do my best to be prompt, but know that it could take a week or more if a lot of you submit.
5) If I really like your script I will spotlight it in a post on my blog, but know that it would probably have to rate a 9 or a 10 for me to do that.
Other readers and industry pros with Black List access, I encourage you to join in the fun and check out some of these submissions. Let's see if we can help someone get discovered!
Addendum: Okay, seeing how I got about 8 submissions in a half-hour, I think I'll need to moderate expectations. I'll promise to make the first 25 submissions a priority. Anything that comes in after that, I'll make an effort, but know that they'll probably be a lesser priority unless a logline really catches my eye.
Several of you have scripts up on the Black List and as we've seen, it can help a script immensely if it gets a positive review. The problem is that it's hard to get people to notice your script before a paid review is complete. Also, there's no guarantee that the paid review will be a positive one. However, in clairfying the way the review metric works, Franklin Leonard revealed something very interesting over at Done Deal Pro:
"Any script that gets a particularly high rating from any individual reviewer can expect that script to get spotlighted to our industry professional members. Practically, if you write a script that gets a 1 from one reader and a 9 from another reader, that script will still be included as part of our email spotlighting recent scripts that got a strong review. Presumably people who are interested in your genre and logline will download it, read it, and rate it, which will then result in your overall rating changing over time based on those members thoughts on your script."
In practical terms, this means the paid reader could HATE your script, but if someone else really likes it, you could still get an endorsement. So here's my offer to you....
I will read the first ten pages of ANY script linked to in the comment of this post. If I think the script has promise beyond those ten pages, I will continue reading until I feel my interest wane. This means that if I get to the end, presumably I'll have a positive impression of your script and I will rate it as such.
The conditions:
1) the link to your script's page on the Black List MUST be in the comments. Do not email me. Do not Tweet me. I will ONLY read scripts publicly pointed out here. Feel free to include a logline or any other information.
2) I will offer no comments on any of the scripts I didn't complete. Don't ask me what you did wrong. Don't ask me for feedback. I doubt I'll have time to respond to everyone, and so to be fair, I will respond to no one.
3) I will be holding all scripts to the same standards as the material I read for my job. There's no such thing as "good for an amateur" on this scale. Scripts will be judged according to how they measure up to professional submissions.
4) This offer is good until noon on Tuesday, October 30. If I get a huge response, it's going to take some time for me to work through these scripts. I'll do my best to be prompt, but know that it could take a week or more if a lot of you submit.
5) If I really like your script I will spotlight it in a post on my blog, but know that it would probably have to rate a 9 or a 10 for me to do that.
Other readers and industry pros with Black List access, I encourage you to join in the fun and check out some of these submissions. Let's see if we can help someone get discovered!
Addendum: Okay, seeing how I got about 8 submissions in a half-hour, I think I'll need to moderate expectations. I'll promise to make the first 25 submissions a priority. Anything that comes in after that, I'll make an effort, but know that they'll probably be a lesser priority unless a logline really catches my eye.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
The most amazing saga of slimy producers I have heard
Remember back when I talked about parasite PINOs - Producers In Name Only - and how their attachment to your script can often cause more headaches than benefits? Well, I recently came across an amazing series of blog posts from writer Doug Richardson.
As Doug introduces the story:
I’ve written about theft before. Both stories and ideas nicked by scumbag producers without consequence. What follows is an epic tale. All true. With multiple endings that, to this day, still leave me and others gob-smacked.
Set aside some time and read this. It's an amusing, at times barely believable story. But it's also a cautionary tale. Some of you may have already read it. For those that haven't, I do not DARE even think of ruining all the twists and turns in this epic.
The Smoking Gun - part 1
The Smoking Gun - part 2
The Smoking Gun - part 3
The Smoking Gun - part 4
As Doug introduces the story:
I’ve written about theft before. Both stories and ideas nicked by scumbag producers without consequence. What follows is an epic tale. All true. With multiple endings that, to this day, still leave me and others gob-smacked.
Set aside some time and read this. It's an amusing, at times barely believable story. But it's also a cautionary tale. Some of you may have already read it. For those that haven't, I do not DARE even think of ruining all the twists and turns in this epic.
The Smoking Gun - part 1
The Smoking Gun - part 2
The Smoking Gun - part 3
The Smoking Gun - part 4
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Black List questions and strategy
Jeff asked the following question in the comments of yesterday's Black List post:
I uploaded my screenplay on Oct. 15 and just got my first rating today - a respectable 7 (not great but still just above the community average rating). And while I'm completely satisfied with the feedback I received (you can read it here if you're interested: https://blcklst.com/members/script/3899), I can't help but think, "what now?" I mean, is a rating of 7 high enough to get noticed on the BL? Should I get a second opinion and shell out $50 for another review? Is there anything else I can do to be more proactive about getting my script read by the right people?
I think it's a little early to make a call if a rating of 7 is high enough to get noticed or not. I know that I've set my preferences to alert me about anything good that gets a 7 or higher, but 8 might be the cutoff for other people. Given what I understand about the site, you can see the number of hits to the script. I'd let it ride for a little and see what kind of traffic you get. At the very least, I urge against making any knee jerk reactions. It's still early in the site's life, so you might want give it some time and let everyone feel out how the site is most effective for them.
Also, I saw that someone else's screenplay got a rating of 9, but in the 'Prospects' section of their review, the reader made the comment that while the script was extremely well done, "it may have difficulty finding a large commercial audience were it to be produced." In the 'Prospects' section of my script's review, the reader said "The script is well done and can find a commercial audience..." So what do you think is more attractive to industry professionals: a script with a high rating but lower commercial appeal, or a script with an average rating but with more commercial potential? Thanks in advance for any response to my questions.
I think that the answer to your question is going to vary depending upon the individual user. It's not going to be a "one size fits all" answer. I will say that if someone gets a lot of 9s and 10s, there's a good chance that they're doing a LOT right. If their only "sin" is that they wrote something that's not marketable, someone might be inclined to give at least the first 10 pages a read and see what it's like.
There's also different degrees of "not marketable," so again, the severity of that detriment might vary script-to-script. Adult dramas and action movies with women in the lead are often considered less marketable, but I could see someone taking a chance on an exemplary one of them. But a Biblical epic, or a three hour movie about Pompeii? Yeah, that's aggressively unmarketable to the degree that the quality of the writing probably won't help as much.
As for writing something of average quality but with commercial appeal - if you've got a brilliant concept, maybe you could get away with it. Just don't forget that Hollywood is filled with scripts that are "average." So if you've got a low concept idea and a so-so write-up, it might not be enough that you're writing in a marketable genre.
I uploaded my screenplay on Oct. 15 and just got my first rating today - a respectable 7 (not great but still just above the community average rating). And while I'm completely satisfied with the feedback I received (you can read it here if you're interested: https://blcklst.com/members/script/3899), I can't help but think, "what now?" I mean, is a rating of 7 high enough to get noticed on the BL? Should I get a second opinion and shell out $50 for another review? Is there anything else I can do to be more proactive about getting my script read by the right people?
I think it's a little early to make a call if a rating of 7 is high enough to get noticed or not. I know that I've set my preferences to alert me about anything good that gets a 7 or higher, but 8 might be the cutoff for other people. Given what I understand about the site, you can see the number of hits to the script. I'd let it ride for a little and see what kind of traffic you get. At the very least, I urge against making any knee jerk reactions. It's still early in the site's life, so you might want give it some time and let everyone feel out how the site is most effective for them.
Also, I saw that someone else's screenplay got a rating of 9, but in the 'Prospects' section of their review, the reader made the comment that while the script was extremely well done, "it may have difficulty finding a large commercial audience were it to be produced." In the 'Prospects' section of my script's review, the reader said "The script is well done and can find a commercial audience..." So what do you think is more attractive to industry professionals: a script with a high rating but lower commercial appeal, or a script with an average rating but with more commercial potential? Thanks in advance for any response to my questions.
I think that the answer to your question is going to vary depending upon the individual user. It's not going to be a "one size fits all" answer. I will say that if someone gets a lot of 9s and 10s, there's a good chance that they're doing a LOT right. If their only "sin" is that they wrote something that's not marketable, someone might be inclined to give at least the first 10 pages a read and see what it's like.
There's also different degrees of "not marketable," so again, the severity of that detriment might vary script-to-script. Adult dramas and action movies with women in the lead are often considered less marketable, but I could see someone taking a chance on an exemplary one of them. But a Biblical epic, or a three hour movie about Pompeii? Yeah, that's aggressively unmarketable to the degree that the quality of the writing probably won't help as much.
As for writing something of average quality but with commercial appeal - if you've got a brilliant concept, maybe you could get away with it. Just don't forget that Hollywood is filled with scripts that are "average." So if you've got a low concept idea and a so-so write-up, it might not be enough that you're writing in a marketable genre.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Tuesday Talkback: Are you joining Black List 3.0?
Due to the way posts were scheduled last week, I never really got a chance to ask this - how many of you are considering or have already joined Black List 3.0?
Monday, October 22, 2012
What worked and didn't work in Paranormal Activity 4
I saw Paranormal Activity 4 this weekend and found it to be something of a mixed bag. I have to admit, I enjoy these found footage horror films largely from the angle of looking for the seams. I rarely am able to get immerced in the conceit that what we're seeing is "actually happening" but oddly, I really enjoy spotting all the tricks and innovations that the creators use to create that illusion.
But rather than pontificate about found footage, just go read my old post on the matter here.
There was a fair amount I liked about the film. For one thing - casting director Terri Taylor should be commended for finding the young actress who plays the lead, Kathryn Newton. The 15 year-old really has to carry most of the movie and it's clear the wrong actress in that part could have sunk the film. She manages to be the most likable and most sympathetic protagonist in any of the PA films. It helps that she has great chemistry with the actor playing her boyfriend, Matt Shively. Shivley's actually 22, but he manages to play a credible 15 or 16.
It really enhances the film to have teenagers who actually look like teenagers. We're so used to seeing actors in their mid-twenties playing high school students that it almost takes us aback to be reminded how young and vulnerable actual teenagers look. It actually makes terror more vivid because these victims don't look like over-developed adults. Even though these movies always end with the heroes getting killed, I found myself really wanting these kids to come out of this okay.
And yet, when they met their end, I felt cheated in a way that had little to do with the downer nature of the ending. It was a little bit of a surprise, especially since the second film went out of its way to spare its teenage protagonist from the slaughter. Mostly, I felt let down because every previous sequel tried to expand the mythology. The mythology and the backstory deepened, perhaps not completely, but enough that it felt like this chapter needed to be the definitive end.
Over the course of the previous three movies, we learned that the demon haunting Katie in the first film was a demon that had made a pact with a coven led by Katie's grandmother. The pact demanded payment in the form of the first male child born in the family line. This turned out to be Hunter, the infant stolen away in the second film, who resurfaces in Paranormal Activity 4. The events of this film lead to Hunter ending up in the possession of the coven. Unfortunately, his fate after that is ambiguous and it's pretty well hinted that Kathryn's character meets her end trying to save him.
As profitable as these films are, it's probably unrealistic to expect Paramount to produce a definitive conclusion before the box office totally bottoms out. The problem is that three films of build-up demanded a more meaningful climax to the Hunter story. Basically, the film ends right before the true climax should begin, giving the audience a massive case of blue balls.
Other writing issues:
Why do Alex's parents agree to take in Robbie? Alex's mother meets Robbie's mother Katie only once, briefly. How many of you would taken in a strange kid belonging to a neighbor whom you met for only three minutes once.
How the hell did Hunter come to be adopted by the family as Wyatt? There's a big red herring in that we're clearly set up to think that Robbie is actually Hunter, but as it turns out, Wyatt is revealed to be Katie's nephew. This unfortunately leads us to wonder how Hunter ended up going from being in Katie's clutches at the end of the second film, to going into the adoption system. There are some indications that Katie had to wait until Hunter was of age so that the pact could be completed, so that at least explains why he wasn't delivered to the demon immediately. Yet I can't figure out how or why she would have lost custody of the kid without revealing herself to the authorities in the process.
As for Robbie's real identity, I'm presuming that Katie was pregnant when she got possessed and that the boy is her actual son. I'm going to further suppose that since Robbie was the second male child born to that family line that he couldn't be offered up to the demon to fulfill the pact.
Why does Alex stop watching the videos? Alex and her boyfriend are smart enough to rig up a surveilance system that basically turns every laptop in the house into a hidden camera. For about 2/3 of the film, we see them dilligently reviewing the footage and finding evidence of weird stuff. Then, when things become a little less ambiguous (i.e. the knife incident), Alex conveniently stops reviewing the tapes.
The script tries to cover this by showing Alex having trouble logging in, but that's a fix that actually makes the problem worse because it creates an unanswered question about why Alex's password has suddenly been changed. (Maybe you could argue one of the kids did it under the direction of the demon, but then why not just turn off the cameras or trash the laptop altogether?)
Was Katie really in the hospital? If so, what was wrong with her? If not, why was she faking? Robbie ends up with Alex's family because his mom Katie becomes sick under strange circumstances. Not only is her condition never explained beyond this, but Alex points out that Katie doesn't look like someone who was sick. That line seems designed to make us suspect there's more to her illness than meets the eye - but we know that at a minimum, there was an ambulance that took her away. We get zero clue to what she was sick with. It's just a weak plot device designed to isolate Robbie.
The arrival of the coven members also doesn't make much sense. Since Katie obviously knows all of these people, why wouldn't one of them take Robbie in? Are all of these holes supposed to lead us to the conclusion that Katie went to these lengths to plant Robbie in with Alex's family, knowing he'd make contact with Hunter? Surely there had to be easier ways to insinuate oneself with that family. (A good start? Try not acting like a fucking weirdo. Just knock on the door and say "Hi, I'm Katie. My son and I are new to the neighborhood and I thought it'd be good for Robbie to play with boys his own age.")
Those are the biggest issues with regard to the script's internal logic. I have a few others, but they start to enter the realm of nitpicking. Did you guys see it this weekend? What did you think?
But rather than pontificate about found footage, just go read my old post on the matter here.
There was a fair amount I liked about the film. For one thing - casting director Terri Taylor should be commended for finding the young actress who plays the lead, Kathryn Newton. The 15 year-old really has to carry most of the movie and it's clear the wrong actress in that part could have sunk the film. She manages to be the most likable and most sympathetic protagonist in any of the PA films. It helps that she has great chemistry with the actor playing her boyfriend, Matt Shively. Shivley's actually 22, but he manages to play a credible 15 or 16.
It really enhances the film to have teenagers who actually look like teenagers. We're so used to seeing actors in their mid-twenties playing high school students that it almost takes us aback to be reminded how young and vulnerable actual teenagers look. It actually makes terror more vivid because these victims don't look like over-developed adults. Even though these movies always end with the heroes getting killed, I found myself really wanting these kids to come out of this okay.
And yet, when they met their end, I felt cheated in a way that had little to do with the downer nature of the ending. It was a little bit of a surprise, especially since the second film went out of its way to spare its teenage protagonist from the slaughter. Mostly, I felt let down because every previous sequel tried to expand the mythology. The mythology and the backstory deepened, perhaps not completely, but enough that it felt like this chapter needed to be the definitive end.
Over the course of the previous three movies, we learned that the demon haunting Katie in the first film was a demon that had made a pact with a coven led by Katie's grandmother. The pact demanded payment in the form of the first male child born in the family line. This turned out to be Hunter, the infant stolen away in the second film, who resurfaces in Paranormal Activity 4. The events of this film lead to Hunter ending up in the possession of the coven. Unfortunately, his fate after that is ambiguous and it's pretty well hinted that Kathryn's character meets her end trying to save him.
As profitable as these films are, it's probably unrealistic to expect Paramount to produce a definitive conclusion before the box office totally bottoms out. The problem is that three films of build-up demanded a more meaningful climax to the Hunter story. Basically, the film ends right before the true climax should begin, giving the audience a massive case of blue balls.
Other writing issues:
Why do Alex's parents agree to take in Robbie? Alex's mother meets Robbie's mother Katie only once, briefly. How many of you would taken in a strange kid belonging to a neighbor whom you met for only three minutes once.
How the hell did Hunter come to be adopted by the family as Wyatt? There's a big red herring in that we're clearly set up to think that Robbie is actually Hunter, but as it turns out, Wyatt is revealed to be Katie's nephew. This unfortunately leads us to wonder how Hunter ended up going from being in Katie's clutches at the end of the second film, to going into the adoption system. There are some indications that Katie had to wait until Hunter was of age so that the pact could be completed, so that at least explains why he wasn't delivered to the demon immediately. Yet I can't figure out how or why she would have lost custody of the kid without revealing herself to the authorities in the process.
As for Robbie's real identity, I'm presuming that Katie was pregnant when she got possessed and that the boy is her actual son. I'm going to further suppose that since Robbie was the second male child born to that family line that he couldn't be offered up to the demon to fulfill the pact.
Why does Alex stop watching the videos? Alex and her boyfriend are smart enough to rig up a surveilance system that basically turns every laptop in the house into a hidden camera. For about 2/3 of the film, we see them dilligently reviewing the footage and finding evidence of weird stuff. Then, when things become a little less ambiguous (i.e. the knife incident), Alex conveniently stops reviewing the tapes.
The script tries to cover this by showing Alex having trouble logging in, but that's a fix that actually makes the problem worse because it creates an unanswered question about why Alex's password has suddenly been changed. (Maybe you could argue one of the kids did it under the direction of the demon, but then why not just turn off the cameras or trash the laptop altogether?)
Was Katie really in the hospital? If so, what was wrong with her? If not, why was she faking? Robbie ends up with Alex's family because his mom Katie becomes sick under strange circumstances. Not only is her condition never explained beyond this, but Alex points out that Katie doesn't look like someone who was sick. That line seems designed to make us suspect there's more to her illness than meets the eye - but we know that at a minimum, there was an ambulance that took her away. We get zero clue to what she was sick with. It's just a weak plot device designed to isolate Robbie.
The arrival of the coven members also doesn't make much sense. Since Katie obviously knows all of these people, why wouldn't one of them take Robbie in? Are all of these holes supposed to lead us to the conclusion that Katie went to these lengths to plant Robbie in with Alex's family, knowing he'd make contact with Hunter? Surely there had to be easier ways to insinuate oneself with that family. (A good start? Try not acting like a fucking weirdo. Just knock on the door and say "Hi, I'm Katie. My son and I are new to the neighborhood and I thought it'd be good for Robbie to play with boys his own age.")
Those are the biggest issues with regard to the script's internal logic. I have a few others, but they start to enter the realm of nitpicking. Did you guys see it this weekend? What did you think?
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
What screenwriting style or voice should you use?
Adam writes in with a question:
With screenwriting as a hobby, I read screenplays online. One thing that stands out to me is the prose or voice that the writer uses. I know it's really down to writing style, but when I'm reading a script (like DOOM) which has this arrogant, douchebag prose, it's fairly annoying to read. For example, the Social Network screenplay has this simple, descriptive style shot through the description. Yeah, the latter was written by Aaron Sorkin himself, and it's a lot less action oriented than the former, but do you have a professional opinion on the writing style to use?
Another easy one - whichever voice comes to you naturally. If you're uncomfortable with a particular writing style, don't try to emulate it because your own voice will never come through. It'll feel forced and hackneyed and it'll be harder to figure out what YOU bring to this script.
Every reader probably sees dozens of scripts a year where the writer has tried to ape Shane Black's style of talking to the reader and failed miserably at it. It's sort of like when you read a story from someone trying to evoke '30s pulp novels with detectives and gangsters. The prose all reads as purple because the best the writer can do is imitate rather than immerse.
And frankly, some of this will also depend on the tone and the style of the movie. A balls-to-the-wall action movie like DOOM might benefit from an in-your-face style of writing that is in the spirit of the film. I doubt you'd want to use that tone for a more intimate drama like SMASHED, though.
With screenwriting as a hobby, I read screenplays online. One thing that stands out to me is the prose or voice that the writer uses. I know it's really down to writing style, but when I'm reading a script (like DOOM) which has this arrogant, douchebag prose, it's fairly annoying to read. For example, the Social Network screenplay has this simple, descriptive style shot through the description. Yeah, the latter was written by Aaron Sorkin himself, and it's a lot less action oriented than the former, but do you have a professional opinion on the writing style to use?
Another easy one - whichever voice comes to you naturally. If you're uncomfortable with a particular writing style, don't try to emulate it because your own voice will never come through. It'll feel forced and hackneyed and it'll be harder to figure out what YOU bring to this script.
Every reader probably sees dozens of scripts a year where the writer has tried to ape Shane Black's style of talking to the reader and failed miserably at it. It's sort of like when you read a story from someone trying to evoke '30s pulp novels with detectives and gangsters. The prose all reads as purple because the best the writer can do is imitate rather than immerse.
And frankly, some of this will also depend on the tone and the style of the movie. A balls-to-the-wall action movie like DOOM might benefit from an in-your-face style of writing that is in the spirit of the film. I doubt you'd want to use that tone for a more intimate drama like SMASHED, though.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
EXCLUSIVE interview with Franklin Leonard about Black List 3.0!
As promised yesterday, here's my EXCLUSIVE video interview with Black List creator Franklin Leonard about the site's newly launched service, Black List 3.0.
For those who don't know, the Black List has been around since 2005 and is is an annual list of Hollywood's most liked unproduced screenplays. As their website boasts, "Since its inception, more than 125 past Black List scripts have become theatrically released feature films grossing over $11 billion in total and winning 20 Academy Awards from over 80 nominations. Both 2010 and 2011 Academy Award Best Pictures THE KING’S SPEECH and SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE were Black List scripts. Along with Diablo Cody’s JUNO and Aaron Sorkin’s THE SOCIAL NETWORK, Black List scripts have won four of the last eight screenwriting Academy Awards."
Franklin Leonard has worked in Hollywood since 2002 and was most recently Vice President, Creative Affairs at Overbrook Entertainment. Before that he was a Director of Development at Universal and has also worked at Appian Way.
(Apologies for some of the sound issues, folks. One of our mics decided to have a little fun with us.)
Franklin wanted me to correct two misstatments he makes in the interview. First, current membership is at over 1,100, not one thousand. Also, the site only has about 3600 titles on it, not 5000.
Hopefully you found this interview useful and please pass it along!
Related: The What, How, and Why of the Black List: The Long Answer by Franklin Leonard
For those who don't know, the Black List has been around since 2005 and is is an annual list of Hollywood's most liked unproduced screenplays. As their website boasts, "Since its inception, more than 125 past Black List scripts have become theatrically released feature films grossing over $11 billion in total and winning 20 Academy Awards from over 80 nominations. Both 2010 and 2011 Academy Award Best Pictures THE KING’S SPEECH and SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE were Black List scripts. Along with Diablo Cody’s JUNO and Aaron Sorkin’s THE SOCIAL NETWORK, Black List scripts have won four of the last eight screenwriting Academy Awards."
Franklin Leonard has worked in Hollywood since 2002 and was most recently Vice President, Creative Affairs at Overbrook Entertainment. Before that he was a Director of Development at Universal and has also worked at Appian Way.
(Apologies for some of the sound issues, folks. One of our mics decided to have a little fun with us.)
Franklin wanted me to correct two misstatments he makes in the interview. First, current membership is at over 1,100, not one thousand. Also, the site only has about 3600 titles on it, not 5000.
Hopefully you found this interview useful and please pass it along!
Related: The What, How, and Why of the Black List: The Long Answer by Franklin Leonard
Monday, October 15, 2012
Why every aspiring writer should be excited about Black List 3.0
I'll say this for Franklin Leonard, he doesn't do anything small.
The Black List creator has just announced a new feature to the Black List website, dubbed Black List 3.0. Just last week, membership to the Black List website was made free for all industry pros. Currently the site has a tracking board of sorts, where those industry pros are able to rate scripts that are listed within the database. (The scripts themselves are not stored, just the identifying information like title, writer, representation, attachments and so on.)
But the big move has come this week. Starting soon, non-pros will be able to pay a fee to make their scripts available on the Black List site. For an additional fee, the script can be covered by trusted industry readers, who will then evaluate and rate the script. Thus, if I upload my spec BIG ROOSTERS & SOAKED KITTENS and pay both fees, the following will happen:
First, a Black List approved reader will read the entire script and rate it according to the sites metrics. As expected the coverage will also detail the genre/s and most likely the budget of the script. Then, that information will be made available in the database for as long as I pay the monthly fee.
(And let's be realistic, the fees are necessary if any industry readers worth their salt are going to take their time to read these submissions. It's just simple economics - if you want quality gatekeepers, they're going to need to have some compensation for their time.)
So let's say the Black List writer really liked my low-to-mid budget comedy and gave it a score that averaged out to 8.5 out of 10. Every member who searches for a script with those parameters will have access to my script, my coverage and my contact information. So for the price of a late submission to a prestigious contest, I could end up with a script request from a major company or two. Or ten.
And here's where the real brilliance of Mr. Leonard's scheme comes in. The Black List is a brand that everyone in town knows. It is perhaps the most coveted insider list and it's spawned more than a few imitators. People trust the Black List... and Mr. Leonard just made access to the site completely free for them. At present, I'm told there are over 1,100 industry pros signed up as members.
I don't care how many tracking boards most development people are already signed up for. If something like this is free, they're gonna sign up for it, if only to have the inside track on the next Black List. By doing this, it practically guarantees that The Black List will have a higher quality of clientele than something like InkTip.
Granted, InkTip is a little cheaper at $60 for six months, but there all you're posting is the logline. At BL 3.0, there's a gatekeeper there who's going to play town crier for anything worth while.
This also solves the problem with Triggerstreet. Over there, users can post their scripts for free... but they're only being read and rated by other community members. Thus, there's less of a chance those readers will have the same discerning tastes as readers who work within the industry and in a worst case scenario, it could be the blind leading the blind.
And then there's Amazon Studios. Look, you all know what I think of the site by now. I think Black List 3.0 totally demolishes Amazon in every fashion. Sure, Amazon was also free... but at the cost of giving them a temporary exclusive option and the right to buy the script for a predetermined price. Plus, does anyone think Amazon's actually going to get a feature film released?
With the Black List, you're getting your material in front of people who've actually made real movies before - not dilettantes who were fixated on producing test films. You own the script, you (or your representation) has full ability to negotiate the sale. The Black List doesn't gloom onto your work at all. They don't option it, they don't attach themselves as producers. Their involvement goes only as far as making the introduction possible. (They're basically going "Oprah, Uma. Uma, Oprah.")
And let's talk contests and fellowships. As we've talked about before, most contests are probably going to run you between $40-$75. In most of those cases, that's just the fee to enter. You rarely get coverage or anything else. We've also mentioned that there are few contests that are really strong at jump-starting careers. It's my supposition that you'll probably have access to more real industry insiders through The Black List than through most contest submissions. Even if the cost for a month of posting is a little more than a contest submission, the potential benefit far outweighs that.
And then let's not forget the coverage/scouting services that evaluate your script and promise to pass it to their contacts if it's deemed good enough. Coverage from ScriptShark will run you $149. Script Pipeline charges $350. And then there's a lone reader out there who's currently charging $1000 a read. (The cherry on top of that is that he also is trying to be a manager and a producer. No one should ever have to pay either of those sorts of professionals for a read, as that's stepping into some very murky ethical territory.)
So if you're one of the people who would pay to enter a contest, or who would pay those huge fees just for coverage and the barest promise of "access," you should be jumping for joy about Black List 3.0. It seems like a good idea on it's own, but when you put it in context with all the other "breaking into Hollywood" services there are, this has the potential to be a clear winner.
It's basically a Voltron of everything good about Triggerstreet, InkTip, Amazon Studios and most contests, with very little of the most derided aspects of those services.
I saw a lot of negativity about this venture last month when details started leaking out on Deadline. That disappoints me for a lot of reasons, chiefly because I think this is unquestionably one of the best opportunities to come along for aspiring writers in a long time. I see a lot of potential here and a lot of opportunity. But opportunism? No, I don't feel that at all.
I don't know Franklin well. I've only met him a couple of times and have mostly communicated now and then via email and Twitter. I can say that he's struck me as an incredibly intelligent and above board professional and I'm truly convinced he has the best of intentions with this site.
But I know that there will be a lot of questions about this, so I've reached out to Franklin Leonard and I'll be posting an EXCLUSIVE video interview with him tomorrow! (That's right - that means the creator of the Black List is going to submit to questioning by a puppet!) Spread the word and come back tomorrow to see me interrogate Franklin about Black List 3.0
Related:
Go Into The Story: New Black List Feature for aspiring writers
Amanda Pendolino: The Black List Launches services for aspiring writers
The What, How, and Why of the Black List: The Long Answer by Franklin Leonard
Screenwriter Geoff LaTulippe with "My Thoughts on the Black List Project"
The Black List creator has just announced a new feature to the Black List website, dubbed Black List 3.0. Just last week, membership to the Black List website was made free for all industry pros. Currently the site has a tracking board of sorts, where those industry pros are able to rate scripts that are listed within the database. (The scripts themselves are not stored, just the identifying information like title, writer, representation, attachments and so on.)
But the big move has come this week. Starting soon, non-pros will be able to pay a fee to make their scripts available on the Black List site. For an additional fee, the script can be covered by trusted industry readers, who will then evaluate and rate the script. Thus, if I upload my spec BIG ROOSTERS & SOAKED KITTENS and pay both fees, the following will happen:
First, a Black List approved reader will read the entire script and rate it according to the sites metrics. As expected the coverage will also detail the genre/s and most likely the budget of the script. Then, that information will be made available in the database for as long as I pay the monthly fee.
(And let's be realistic, the fees are necessary if any industry readers worth their salt are going to take their time to read these submissions. It's just simple economics - if you want quality gatekeepers, they're going to need to have some compensation for their time.)
So let's say the Black List writer really liked my low-to-mid budget comedy and gave it a score that averaged out to 8.5 out of 10. Every member who searches for a script with those parameters will have access to my script, my coverage and my contact information. So for the price of a late submission to a prestigious contest, I could end up with a script request from a major company or two. Or ten.
And here's where the real brilliance of Mr. Leonard's scheme comes in. The Black List is a brand that everyone in town knows. It is perhaps the most coveted insider list and it's spawned more than a few imitators. People trust the Black List... and Mr. Leonard just made access to the site completely free for them. At present, I'm told there are over 1,100 industry pros signed up as members.
I don't care how many tracking boards most development people are already signed up for. If something like this is free, they're gonna sign up for it, if only to have the inside track on the next Black List. By doing this, it practically guarantees that The Black List will have a higher quality of clientele than something like InkTip.
Granted, InkTip is a little cheaper at $60 for six months, but there all you're posting is the logline. At BL 3.0, there's a gatekeeper there who's going to play town crier for anything worth while.
This also solves the problem with Triggerstreet. Over there, users can post their scripts for free... but they're only being read and rated by other community members. Thus, there's less of a chance those readers will have the same discerning tastes as readers who work within the industry and in a worst case scenario, it could be the blind leading the blind.
And then there's Amazon Studios. Look, you all know what I think of the site by now. I think Black List 3.0 totally demolishes Amazon in every fashion. Sure, Amazon was also free... but at the cost of giving them a temporary exclusive option and the right to buy the script for a predetermined price. Plus, does anyone think Amazon's actually going to get a feature film released?
With the Black List, you're getting your material in front of people who've actually made real movies before - not dilettantes who were fixated on producing test films. You own the script, you (or your representation) has full ability to negotiate the sale. The Black List doesn't gloom onto your work at all. They don't option it, they don't attach themselves as producers. Their involvement goes only as far as making the introduction possible. (They're basically going "Oprah, Uma. Uma, Oprah.")
And let's talk contests and fellowships. As we've talked about before, most contests are probably going to run you between $40-$75. In most of those cases, that's just the fee to enter. You rarely get coverage or anything else. We've also mentioned that there are few contests that are really strong at jump-starting careers. It's my supposition that you'll probably have access to more real industry insiders through The Black List than through most contest submissions. Even if the cost for a month of posting is a little more than a contest submission, the potential benefit far outweighs that.
And then let's not forget the coverage/scouting services that evaluate your script and promise to pass it to their contacts if it's deemed good enough. Coverage from ScriptShark will run you $149. Script Pipeline charges $350. And then there's a lone reader out there who's currently charging $1000 a read. (The cherry on top of that is that he also is trying to be a manager and a producer. No one should ever have to pay either of those sorts of professionals for a read, as that's stepping into some very murky ethical territory.)
So if you're one of the people who would pay to enter a contest, or who would pay those huge fees just for coverage and the barest promise of "access," you should be jumping for joy about Black List 3.0. It seems like a good idea on it's own, but when you put it in context with all the other "breaking into Hollywood" services there are, this has the potential to be a clear winner.
It's basically a Voltron of everything good about Triggerstreet, InkTip, Amazon Studios and most contests, with very little of the most derided aspects of those services.
I saw a lot of negativity about this venture last month when details started leaking out on Deadline. That disappoints me for a lot of reasons, chiefly because I think this is unquestionably one of the best opportunities to come along for aspiring writers in a long time. I see a lot of potential here and a lot of opportunity. But opportunism? No, I don't feel that at all.
I don't know Franklin well. I've only met him a couple of times and have mostly communicated now and then via email and Twitter. I can say that he's struck me as an incredibly intelligent and above board professional and I'm truly convinced he has the best of intentions with this site.
But I know that there will be a lot of questions about this, so I've reached out to Franklin Leonard and I'll be posting an EXCLUSIVE video interview with him tomorrow! (That's right - that means the creator of the Black List is going to submit to questioning by a puppet!) Spread the word and come back tomorrow to see me interrogate Franklin about Black List 3.0
Related:
Go Into The Story: New Black List Feature for aspiring writers
Amanda Pendolino: The Black List Launches services for aspiring writers
The What, How, and Why of the Black List: The Long Answer by Franklin Leonard
Screenwriter Geoff LaTulippe with "My Thoughts on the Black List Project"
Writing scenes for famous actors to play themselves
Lance asks:
The main character in my comedy script is loosely based on a famous actor. From the character's description, mannerisms and dialogue, it is very easy to conclude whom he is based on. This parody, however, is fictionalized enough to avoid a lawsuit.
It’s roughly akin to the Tim Allen character in “Galaxy Quest.” It’s pretty obvious that character is supposed to evoke William Shatner.
Some fellow writers insist that my hero should not be written as a fictional character, but as the real person. They claim this could be a way to attract that actor to play himself. If that fails, the studio could hire an impersonator as in “Saturday Night Live” sketches, as long as the real actor signs off on it. They argue any or all of this could be changed later on if need be.
I say this is a recipe for disaster.
As you’ve acknowledged, some overworked script readers look for any excuse to toss a script in the trash. Getting actors to play themselves can be very hard. Yes, "Being John Malkovich" got made but I believe that to be the exception and not the rule.
As far as getting an impersonator goes, no studio would want to take on this big of a legal headache. SNL makes seven-minute sketches with broad caricature-like parodies when using a real person’s name. I believe the consequences of this course of action would be much different if the character is the protagonist in a motion picture.
So, my question is, who’s right?
A long question with a very short answer - you are, largely for the reasons you cite. If your script is coming into the company at a low level, say, in response to a query, you're really hurting yourself if the lead character is a famous actor playing themselves.
You want the longer version? If I'm reading "Being Jennifer Aniston," my first thought is going to be, "Is Jennifer Aniston attached to this?" If she's not, then it's a waste of my time to write up the script. Your friends might argue that, "Well, it could just as easily be rewritten to be "Being Katie Holmes," but that's also a problem. If you've done your job, the writing will be so specific to Jennifer Aniston that you can't just pop her out and put Katie Holmes in. Every gag and every major scene would need adjustment.
And if the script is written in a way that DOESN'T force this sort of rewrite, then one has to wonder why Jennifer Aniston is written so generically.
Pro-writers will get the benefit of the doubt on this, by the way. Though the sitcom DON'T TRUST THE B---- IN APT 23 currently features James Van Der Beek as himself, the original draft of the pilot was written for Lance Bass. Of course in that case, JVDB is more of a supporting character than the guy driving the show and the creator and producers were established Hollywood players who got the benefit of the doubt.
Also, is it okay to invoke the name of the person being parodied when writing the fictional character? Could the writer of “Galaxy Quest” describe the hero in the screenplay as a “William Shatner-type?”
Yeah, that's a fair move. There are a couple schools of thought on this, though. Some writers and readers hate this because they consider the shorthand to be a form of cheating. I can see that side of it. If the character evokes William Shatner, than his actions and attitudes should speak louder than that description. Remember, the audience needs to figure out who this guy is from what he says and does - not how the script sums him up in an aside.
I usually avoid that sort of thing when I write, by the way. I'd also suggest that if you do it, not to use that kind of description more than once.
The main character in my comedy script is loosely based on a famous actor. From the character's description, mannerisms and dialogue, it is very easy to conclude whom he is based on. This parody, however, is fictionalized enough to avoid a lawsuit.
It’s roughly akin to the Tim Allen character in “Galaxy Quest.” It’s pretty obvious that character is supposed to evoke William Shatner.
Some fellow writers insist that my hero should not be written as a fictional character, but as the real person. They claim this could be a way to attract that actor to play himself. If that fails, the studio could hire an impersonator as in “Saturday Night Live” sketches, as long as the real actor signs off on it. They argue any or all of this could be changed later on if need be.
I say this is a recipe for disaster.
As you’ve acknowledged, some overworked script readers look for any excuse to toss a script in the trash. Getting actors to play themselves can be very hard. Yes, "Being John Malkovich" got made but I believe that to be the exception and not the rule.
As far as getting an impersonator goes, no studio would want to take on this big of a legal headache. SNL makes seven-minute sketches with broad caricature-like parodies when using a real person’s name. I believe the consequences of this course of action would be much different if the character is the protagonist in a motion picture.
So, my question is, who’s right?
A long question with a very short answer - you are, largely for the reasons you cite. If your script is coming into the company at a low level, say, in response to a query, you're really hurting yourself if the lead character is a famous actor playing themselves.
You want the longer version? If I'm reading "Being Jennifer Aniston," my first thought is going to be, "Is Jennifer Aniston attached to this?" If she's not, then it's a waste of my time to write up the script. Your friends might argue that, "Well, it could just as easily be rewritten to be "Being Katie Holmes," but that's also a problem. If you've done your job, the writing will be so specific to Jennifer Aniston that you can't just pop her out and put Katie Holmes in. Every gag and every major scene would need adjustment.
And if the script is written in a way that DOESN'T force this sort of rewrite, then one has to wonder why Jennifer Aniston is written so generically.
Pro-writers will get the benefit of the doubt on this, by the way. Though the sitcom DON'T TRUST THE B---- IN APT 23 currently features James Van Der Beek as himself, the original draft of the pilot was written for Lance Bass. Of course in that case, JVDB is more of a supporting character than the guy driving the show and the creator and producers were established Hollywood players who got the benefit of the doubt.
Also, is it okay to invoke the name of the person being parodied when writing the fictional character? Could the writer of “Galaxy Quest” describe the hero in the screenplay as a “William Shatner-type?”
Yeah, that's a fair move. There are a couple schools of thought on this, though. Some writers and readers hate this because they consider the shorthand to be a form of cheating. I can see that side of it. If the character evokes William Shatner, than his actions and attitudes should speak louder than that description. Remember, the audience needs to figure out who this guy is from what he says and does - not how the script sums him up in an aside.
I usually avoid that sort of thing when I write, by the way. I'd also suggest that if you do it, not to use that kind of description more than once.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
My KsiteTV post: "What serialized shows like The Vampire Diaries should learn from Buffy’s third season."
I've got another column over at KsiteTV today, this one discussing some things to consider when structuring an entire season's worth of shows. In the course of doing so, I examine the Klaus arc from the last season of The Vampire Diaries and see how it stacks up against one of the best seasons of genre television - the third season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
The CW premieres this week are about to send the new season of genre programming into full swing and you know what that means: season long arcs, new Big Bads, devious endgames, and angst by the barrelful. Serialized arcs are the bread-and-butter for genre TV, which is interesting because as recently as a decade ago, writers and producers were encouraged to be more episodic in their storytelling. (For those not in the know, this means that every episode was more of a standalone, with the stories being resolved in a single show with few continuing threads.) The thinking was that serialized arcs were a harder sell in syndication because they meant that the TV stations couldn’t show episodes in any random order.
Personally, I never understood why this was such a problem but at the same time, it’s hard to argue with the success that episodic shows like Law & Order, CSI and their various spinoffs had on the syndicated market. For the longest time, producers worked to find the right balance between telling a season-long story that had forward momentum through the season while also making as many of those components as standalone as possible.
Aside from the syndication argument, there’s probably a case to be made that it’s not bad on a creative level to take a break from the uber-arcs now and then. Just to name one example, as captivated as I was by the conspiracy arcs on The X-Files during their original run, in reruns I’m far more apt to settle in for a standalone rerun like “Jose Chung’s ‘From Outer Space’” or “Bad Blood.” And let’s face it – sometimes it can get a little tedious if a show spends its entire season in strict serialization. Done right, it can lead to rich storytelling. Done wrong… and there’s a sense of treading water while the writers drag out an inevitable conflict between the good guys and the bad.
Check out KsiteTV for the rest of the article!
The CW premieres this week are about to send the new season of genre programming into full swing and you know what that means: season long arcs, new Big Bads, devious endgames, and angst by the barrelful. Serialized arcs are the bread-and-butter for genre TV, which is interesting because as recently as a decade ago, writers and producers were encouraged to be more episodic in their storytelling. (For those not in the know, this means that every episode was more of a standalone, with the stories being resolved in a single show with few continuing threads.) The thinking was that serialized arcs were a harder sell in syndication because they meant that the TV stations couldn’t show episodes in any random order.
Personally, I never understood why this was such a problem but at the same time, it’s hard to argue with the success that episodic shows like Law & Order, CSI and their various spinoffs had on the syndicated market. For the longest time, producers worked to find the right balance between telling a season-long story that had forward momentum through the season while also making as many of those components as standalone as possible.
Aside from the syndication argument, there’s probably a case to be made that it’s not bad on a creative level to take a break from the uber-arcs now and then. Just to name one example, as captivated as I was by the conspiracy arcs on The X-Files during their original run, in reruns I’m far more apt to settle in for a standalone rerun like “Jose Chung’s ‘From Outer Space’” or “Bad Blood.” And let’s face it – sometimes it can get a little tedious if a show spends its entire season in strict serialization. Done right, it can lead to rich storytelling. Done wrong… and there’s a sense of treading water while the writers drag out an inevitable conflict between the good guys and the bad.
Check out KsiteTV for the rest of the article!
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
How to get read
Jeffrey sent in this question a while back, and I'm embarrassed to admit it languished in my inbox a bit longer than I would have liked:
I guess what it boils down to is... how can we get people to read our stuff? Is sending queries the best way? We do have some industry contacts and we're even working with a story editor on a popular tv show on a joint project (not for tv), and hopefully something will come from one or more of these contacts in the future.
We just really need a manager so we can get our career off the ground, and it just seems like we're floundering in figuring that out. We can keep writing good tv specs and pilots and screenplays until the cows come home (and will!), but if nobody reads them that's a problem. This step has always stymied us, especially now that we're here. I hate not knowing what to do next. Any advice you have would be greatly appreciated.
This is kind of a perennial question, but there are a couple of tactics that bear repeating.
First, if you're in L.A., you've got a leg up because the best thing you can be doing is going out and meeting people who either share your interest in writing or who work in the business. Make enough friends and you'll probably find yourself a few degrees of separation from someone with the ability to pass your script on to a representative. We've talked about networking a lot before, so I won't repeat most of it - except to underline that you shouldn't expect favors right after you meet someone, and try hard to not be too pushy or phony. No one likes to feel like someone is just trying to use them.
This includes Twitter networking. If you're really good, you can find some agents and managers on Twitter and some of them have been know to do open calls for Twit queries. But again, the key is to not be too pushy and desperate. I interact with a lot of great people on Twitter and even made friends with some of them, but I can tell when someone is "trying too hard." Most of you guys are great but a few people are bad at taking the hint that I'm not inclined to read their script, look over their query or whatever.
The query letter/email query method still is known to work, but note that the success rate is usually pretty low, so do your detective work and target your queries. An IMDBPro account can help. Don't just blindly email people and ask them to read your script - go after reps who manage newer talent, or keep an eye on the trades and note when someone gets promoted from agent to assistant.
Here are some good things to keep in mind when composing those queries.
Then there are those who try more creative methods.
It's not easy, and to be honest, even if you have a contact who's in your corner, or if you get a read request, it's still going to come down to if that person likes it or not. If they read the material and it doesn't fit their needs, then it's back to the beginning. Because of this, I suggest not putting all your eggs in one basket. Always be trying to meet new people, keep improving your material, and keep working on getting that material into the hands of people who can do something with it.
I guess what it boils down to is... how can we get people to read our stuff? Is sending queries the best way? We do have some industry contacts and we're even working with a story editor on a popular tv show on a joint project (not for tv), and hopefully something will come from one or more of these contacts in the future.
We just really need a manager so we can get our career off the ground, and it just seems like we're floundering in figuring that out. We can keep writing good tv specs and pilots and screenplays until the cows come home (and will!), but if nobody reads them that's a problem. This step has always stymied us, especially now that we're here. I hate not knowing what to do next. Any advice you have would be greatly appreciated.
This is kind of a perennial question, but there are a couple of tactics that bear repeating.
First, if you're in L.A., you've got a leg up because the best thing you can be doing is going out and meeting people who either share your interest in writing or who work in the business. Make enough friends and you'll probably find yourself a few degrees of separation from someone with the ability to pass your script on to a representative. We've talked about networking a lot before, so I won't repeat most of it - except to underline that you shouldn't expect favors right after you meet someone, and try hard to not be too pushy or phony. No one likes to feel like someone is just trying to use them.
This includes Twitter networking. If you're really good, you can find some agents and managers on Twitter and some of them have been know to do open calls for Twit queries. But again, the key is to not be too pushy and desperate. I interact with a lot of great people on Twitter and even made friends with some of them, but I can tell when someone is "trying too hard." Most of you guys are great but a few people are bad at taking the hint that I'm not inclined to read their script, look over their query or whatever.
The query letter/email query method still is known to work, but note that the success rate is usually pretty low, so do your detective work and target your queries. An IMDBPro account can help. Don't just blindly email people and ask them to read your script - go after reps who manage newer talent, or keep an eye on the trades and note when someone gets promoted from agent to assistant.
Here are some good things to keep in mind when composing those queries.
Then there are those who try more creative methods.
It's not easy, and to be honest, even if you have a contact who's in your corner, or if you get a read request, it's still going to come down to if that person likes it or not. If they read the material and it doesn't fit their needs, then it's back to the beginning. Because of this, I suggest not putting all your eggs in one basket. Always be trying to meet new people, keep improving your material, and keep working on getting that material into the hands of people who can do something with it.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Knowing when to send it out
Paul wrote in with a question:
I frequent a peer review site that ranks screenplays based on reader opinion. I've maintained a top five ranking for ten months now. I won free professional coverage from the site and it was a consider with strong potential for recommend if specific revisions were made. I made a lot of suggested revisions... a lot. Then I paid for more coverage from another service and it was a blatant pass with criticism about everything from character development to plot to writing style to structure, etc. In the end, my question is: do I take a chance and send it out? I thought it was close to being ready, but that last opinion really stuck it to me.
I'm sure this is something a lot of writers wonder about and it is a tough question. On one hand, we're so close to our own work that it's often essential that we have someone with fresh eyes look at at and give us an idea of what the work looks like objectively. On the other hand, the same work can provoke a wide range of opinions from people. A script some people might think is great might not click for other readers for some reason.
But that's just the nature of the beast. Even if you got glowing remarks from that last reviewer, I can probably guarantee that somewhere, someone who reads your script isn't going to love it. If you've given this to several readers who seem to know what they're talking about and most of them think it's ready, odds are it's ready.
But my question would be: do the critiques of the script make sense to you? When you see the problems that reader had with the screenplay, is your gut instinct, "Oh yeah, I can see that" or is it "This guy doesn't see the ideal version of this script the same way I see the ideal version" If it's the latter, it could mean that he's just not a fan of your take on the story - or it could mean that you had trouble translating your intentions to paper.
My own feeling is: if the notes you're given spark ideas that you think can make the script better, there's no reason not to implement them. However, if implementing pushes you in a direction that you're not fully committed to, maybe it's better to just take a stand on your vision and succeed or fail on those merits.
Ideally, you'd be able to send out your script with the conviction that it represents you well. At the very least, you should never feel like you have to apologize for or explain the script. You'll know you're ready when someone tells you "PASS" and you're able to simply say, "Thanks for your time." If your gut is, "Well, I know I just need to make this character more active," or "The second act is a little confusing but I can fix that" or any other apologizes, your writing probably wasn't ready in the first place.
A lot of industry pros will only give you one shot. Can you objectively look at that script and be at peace with this being your single chance?
I frequent a peer review site that ranks screenplays based on reader opinion. I've maintained a top five ranking for ten months now. I won free professional coverage from the site and it was a consider with strong potential for recommend if specific revisions were made. I made a lot of suggested revisions... a lot. Then I paid for more coverage from another service and it was a blatant pass with criticism about everything from character development to plot to writing style to structure, etc. In the end, my question is: do I take a chance and send it out? I thought it was close to being ready, but that last opinion really stuck it to me.
I'm sure this is something a lot of writers wonder about and it is a tough question. On one hand, we're so close to our own work that it's often essential that we have someone with fresh eyes look at at and give us an idea of what the work looks like objectively. On the other hand, the same work can provoke a wide range of opinions from people. A script some people might think is great might not click for other readers for some reason.
But that's just the nature of the beast. Even if you got glowing remarks from that last reviewer, I can probably guarantee that somewhere, someone who reads your script isn't going to love it. If you've given this to several readers who seem to know what they're talking about and most of them think it's ready, odds are it's ready.
But my question would be: do the critiques of the script make sense to you? When you see the problems that reader had with the screenplay, is your gut instinct, "Oh yeah, I can see that" or is it "This guy doesn't see the ideal version of this script the same way I see the ideal version" If it's the latter, it could mean that he's just not a fan of your take on the story - or it could mean that you had trouble translating your intentions to paper.
My own feeling is: if the notes you're given spark ideas that you think can make the script better, there's no reason not to implement them. However, if implementing pushes you in a direction that you're not fully committed to, maybe it's better to just take a stand on your vision and succeed or fail on those merits.
Ideally, you'd be able to send out your script with the conviction that it represents you well. At the very least, you should never feel like you have to apologize for or explain the script. You'll know you're ready when someone tells you "PASS" and you're able to simply say, "Thanks for your time." If your gut is, "Well, I know I just need to make this character more active," or "The second act is a little confusing but I can fix that" or any other apologizes, your writing probably wasn't ready in the first place.
A lot of industry pros will only give you one shot. Can you objectively look at that script and be at peace with this being your single chance?
Friday, October 5, 2012
Interview with TV writer Liz Tigelaar, creator of "Life Unexpected" - Part 13: The Bitter Questions
Part 1 - Breaking in as an assistant
Part 2 - First Staff Writer Job on "American Dreams"
Part 3 - How Do I Get an Agent?
Part 4 - Selling a Pilot
Part 5 - Personal Themes in Writing
Part 6 - Genesis of "Life Unexpected"
Part 7 - First-Time Showrunner
Part 8 - Developing the second year of LUX
Part 9 - Dealing with network notes
Part 10 - Controversial LUX storylines
Part 11 - LUX lives on
Part 12 - Network overall deal, working on Once Upon a Time and Revenge
I confess, I'm a big fan of Inside the Actor's Studio. It's my goal with these interviews to hopefully explore the craft of writing as well as James Lipton probes his subjects on the craft of acting. To that end, I plan on concluding each interview with "The Bitter Questions," a series of serious and silly questions that will hopefully allow the writers to reveal something unexpected about themselves.
This segment also has what might be my favorite moment from Liz Tigelaar. See if you can guess what it is.
And that's a wrap on Liz Tigelaar! I hope you enjoyed this interview as much as I did. Huge thanks goes out to Liz for being so generous with her time AND being willing to put up with being interviewed by a puppet. You can follow Liz on Twitter at @LizTigelaar.
Also, I highly recommend two Nerdist podcasts on which Liz appears. There's a little bit of overlap in the discussions there and in this interview, but because I'd heard one of these and saw a report on the other before I interviewed Liz, I made a conscious effort to not ask Liz too many of the same questions.
This podcast also features writers Robert Hewitt Wolfe (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Alphas) and Dana Gould (The Simpsons.) There's a lot of great writing insight, but also a lot of funny moments among the group too. It's an hour and twenty minutes, but it feels like half that.
Meanwhile, this podcast is a recording of a panel from the ATX Television Festival earlier this year and in addition to Liz, it features Jane Espenson (Once Upon a Time; Husbands; BSG; Buffy) and Erica Messer (showrunner, Criminal Minds). The topic: "Women on TV." Yes, they wade into the issue of gender politics in Hollywood.
Part 2 - First Staff Writer Job on "American Dreams"
Part 3 - How Do I Get an Agent?
Part 4 - Selling a Pilot
Part 5 - Personal Themes in Writing
Part 6 - Genesis of "Life Unexpected"
Part 7 - First-Time Showrunner
Part 8 - Developing the second year of LUX
Part 9 - Dealing with network notes
Part 10 - Controversial LUX storylines
Part 11 - LUX lives on
Part 12 - Network overall deal, working on Once Upon a Time and Revenge
I confess, I'm a big fan of Inside the Actor's Studio. It's my goal with these interviews to hopefully explore the craft of writing as well as James Lipton probes his subjects on the craft of acting. To that end, I plan on concluding each interview with "The Bitter Questions," a series of serious and silly questions that will hopefully allow the writers to reveal something unexpected about themselves.
This segment also has what might be my favorite moment from Liz Tigelaar. See if you can guess what it is.
And that's a wrap on Liz Tigelaar! I hope you enjoyed this interview as much as I did. Huge thanks goes out to Liz for being so generous with her time AND being willing to put up with being interviewed by a puppet. You can follow Liz on Twitter at @LizTigelaar.
Also, I highly recommend two Nerdist podcasts on which Liz appears. There's a little bit of overlap in the discussions there and in this interview, but because I'd heard one of these and saw a report on the other before I interviewed Liz, I made a conscious effort to not ask Liz too many of the same questions.
This podcast also features writers Robert Hewitt Wolfe (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Alphas) and Dana Gould (The Simpsons.) There's a lot of great writing insight, but also a lot of funny moments among the group too. It's an hour and twenty minutes, but it feels like half that.
Meanwhile, this podcast is a recording of a panel from the ATX Television Festival earlier this year and in addition to Liz, it features Jane Espenson (Once Upon a Time; Husbands; BSG; Buffy) and Erica Messer (showrunner, Criminal Minds). The topic: "Women on TV." Yes, they wade into the issue of gender politics in Hollywood.
Interview with TV writer Liz Tigelaar, creator of "Life Unexpected" - Part 12: Network overall deal, working on Once Upon a Time and Revenge
Part 1 - Breaking in as an assistant
Part 2 - First Staff Writer Job on "American Dreams"
Part 3 - How Do I Get an Agent?
Part 4 - Selling a Pilot
Part 5 - Personal Themes in Writing
Part 6 - Genesis of "Life Unexpected"
Part 7 - First-Time Showrunner
Part 8 - Developing the second year of LUX
Part 9 - Dealing with network notes
Part 10 - Controversial LUX storylines
Part 11 - LUX lives on
How about some more business oriented questions? In this segment, Liz explains what it means for a writer to have an "overall deal" with a network. If you read the trades, you may have seen that term crop up a lot.
The other interesting apsect of Liz's answer is the way she explains how a show can evolve beyond its original conception as other members of the writing staff contribute their voices and imprint their perspective onto the show's voice.
Further, Liz explains the difference between writing on Once Upon a Time and writing on Revenge, and how working on both shows forced her to come at stories in a way unlike her usual process.
Part 13 - The Bitter Questions
Part 2 - First Staff Writer Job on "American Dreams"
Part 3 - How Do I Get an Agent?
Part 4 - Selling a Pilot
Part 5 - Personal Themes in Writing
Part 6 - Genesis of "Life Unexpected"
Part 7 - First-Time Showrunner
Part 8 - Developing the second year of LUX
Part 9 - Dealing with network notes
Part 10 - Controversial LUX storylines
Part 11 - LUX lives on
How about some more business oriented questions? In this segment, Liz explains what it means for a writer to have an "overall deal" with a network. If you read the trades, you may have seen that term crop up a lot.
The other interesting apsect of Liz's answer is the way she explains how a show can evolve beyond its original conception as other members of the writing staff contribute their voices and imprint their perspective onto the show's voice.
Further, Liz explains the difference between writing on Once Upon a Time and writing on Revenge, and how working on both shows forced her to come at stories in a way unlike her usual process.
Part 13 - The Bitter Questions
Interview with TV writer Liz Tigelaar, creator of "Life Unexpected" - Part 11: LUX lives on
Part 1 - Breaking in as an assistant
Part 2 - First Staff Writer Job on "American Dreams"
Part 3 - How Do I Get an Agent?
Part 4 - Selling a Pilot
Part 5 - Personal Themes in Writing
Part 6 - Genesis of "Life Unexpected"
Part 7 - First-Time Showrunner
Part 8 - Developing the second year of LUX
Part 9 - Dealing with network notes
Part 10 - Controversial LUX storylines
This was one segment of my Liz Tigelaar interview that very nearly didn't make the final cut, but the more I thought about it, the more I realize it speaks to one element that every writer should strive to bring to their work: passion.
I've followed Liz on Twitter for a while, and one thing I noticed is that in the year that followed LUX's cancellation, Liz and the cast tweeted each other frequently, often referencing the fun they had on the show, or lamenting that they weren't still working together every day. It was a little like seeing an incredibly close-knit group of high school or college friends dealing with the fact that they all had to go off and live their own lives now.
My own observation is that that sadness underscores the really deep connection that all involved had with the material and with each other. I don't get the sense that this was "just a job" for any of them. Sometimes writers and actors tire of their material and when the end comes, they're ready to move on. Or there may be writers who can churn out episode after episode with the same characters, but are dispassionate about the show. Maybe they're good at figuring out what sells, or what people are willing to watch and they
But the best writers give all their heart to the material, whether it's a series, a feature film, or even a short film. When you talk to Liz Tigelaar about Life Unexpected, there's no doubt that she loved that show. In fact, as I say to her at the start of this clip, I wouldn't be surprised if the show still lives on in her head, with seasons full of untold stories about those characters.
I hope that every one of you gets the joy from your writing that Liz clearly did from hers. And if you don't, ask yourself why. If you can't connect to your own work that deeply, how is anyone else going to be able to?
Part 12 - Network overall deal, working on Once Upon a Time and Revenge
Part 13 - The Bitter Questions
Part 2 - First Staff Writer Job on "American Dreams"
Part 3 - How Do I Get an Agent?
Part 4 - Selling a Pilot
Part 5 - Personal Themes in Writing
Part 6 - Genesis of "Life Unexpected"
Part 7 - First-Time Showrunner
Part 8 - Developing the second year of LUX
Part 9 - Dealing with network notes
Part 10 - Controversial LUX storylines
This was one segment of my Liz Tigelaar interview that very nearly didn't make the final cut, but the more I thought about it, the more I realize it speaks to one element that every writer should strive to bring to their work: passion.
I've followed Liz on Twitter for a while, and one thing I noticed is that in the year that followed LUX's cancellation, Liz and the cast tweeted each other frequently, often referencing the fun they had on the show, or lamenting that they weren't still working together every day. It was a little like seeing an incredibly close-knit group of high school or college friends dealing with the fact that they all had to go off and live their own lives now.
My own observation is that that sadness underscores the really deep connection that all involved had with the material and with each other. I don't get the sense that this was "just a job" for any of them. Sometimes writers and actors tire of their material and when the end comes, they're ready to move on. Or there may be writers who can churn out episode after episode with the same characters, but are dispassionate about the show. Maybe they're good at figuring out what sells, or what people are willing to watch and they
But the best writers give all their heart to the material, whether it's a series, a feature film, or even a short film. When you talk to Liz Tigelaar about Life Unexpected, there's no doubt that she loved that show. In fact, as I say to her at the start of this clip, I wouldn't be surprised if the show still lives on in her head, with seasons full of untold stories about those characters.
I hope that every one of you gets the joy from your writing that Liz clearly did from hers. And if you don't, ask yourself why. If you can't connect to your own work that deeply, how is anyone else going to be able to?
Part 12 - Network overall deal, working on Once Upon a Time and Revenge
Part 13 - The Bitter Questions
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Interview with TV writer Liz Tigelaar, creator of "Life Unexpected" - Part 10: Controversial LUX storylines
Part 1 - Breaking in as an assistant
Part 2 - First Staff Writer Job on "American Dreams"
Part 3 - How Do I Get an Agent?
Part 4 - Selling a Pilot
Part 5 - Personal Themes in Writing
Part 6 - Genesis of "Life Unexpected"
Part 7 - First-Time Showrunner
Part 8 - Developing the second year of LUX
Part 9 - Dealing with network notes
Regular readers of this blog will know that I've watched many a teen drama in my day. They'll probably also remember that there are certain tropes of those shows that drive me nuts. And one that really, really gets under my skin when it turns up is when one of the teen characters has an illicit affair with one of their teachers. Considering how repugnant such an act is in the real world, it always disturbs me when television aimed at teen viewers romanticizes such an act.
I didn't mince words when I discussed my feelings about Life Unexpected's foray into that territory. But it's important to remember that that post was written mid-season. Liz Tigelaar hadn't shown all of her cards yet. We somewhat explain this in the interview, but I want to make sure that everyone's clear on the context. After several episodes of exploring Lux's attraction to her teacher, the storyline veers into exploring the abuse Lux suffered in one of her foster homes.
Without getting too deep into the plot complications, I'll just explain that at one point, Lux is being pressured to take the stand against her former foster father. If she doesn't, her friend could end up facing assault charges. Lux resists for a while, but when she does eventually testify, she drops a bombshell on the courtroom. Her foster father (whom her friend is accused of assualting) sexually abused Lux when she was in his care. The result is one of Britt Robertson's best-acted scenes in the series.
There's also a wonderfully nuanced reaction from the actor playing the teacher, as he silently realizes that Lux's attraction to him is very likely the result of what was done to her. He realizes how wrong this affair is before she does. To my recollection, I've never seen the student/teacher affair plot handled that way, with the romantic fantasy suddenly ripped away to expose the sordid, horrifying reasons why this kind of thing happens in real life.
In this segment, Liz talks about arriving at that plot.
Part 11 - LUX lives on
Part 12 - Network overall deal, working on Once Upon a Time and Revenge
Part 13 - The Bitter Questions
Part 2 - First Staff Writer Job on "American Dreams"
Part 3 - How Do I Get an Agent?
Part 4 - Selling a Pilot
Part 5 - Personal Themes in Writing
Part 6 - Genesis of "Life Unexpected"
Part 7 - First-Time Showrunner
Part 8 - Developing the second year of LUX
Part 9 - Dealing with network notes
Regular readers of this blog will know that I've watched many a teen drama in my day. They'll probably also remember that there are certain tropes of those shows that drive me nuts. And one that really, really gets under my skin when it turns up is when one of the teen characters has an illicit affair with one of their teachers. Considering how repugnant such an act is in the real world, it always disturbs me when television aimed at teen viewers romanticizes such an act.
I didn't mince words when I discussed my feelings about Life Unexpected's foray into that territory. But it's important to remember that that post was written mid-season. Liz Tigelaar hadn't shown all of her cards yet. We somewhat explain this in the interview, but I want to make sure that everyone's clear on the context. After several episodes of exploring Lux's attraction to her teacher, the storyline veers into exploring the abuse Lux suffered in one of her foster homes.
Without getting too deep into the plot complications, I'll just explain that at one point, Lux is being pressured to take the stand against her former foster father. If she doesn't, her friend could end up facing assault charges. Lux resists for a while, but when she does eventually testify, she drops a bombshell on the courtroom. Her foster father (whom her friend is accused of assualting) sexually abused Lux when she was in his care. The result is one of Britt Robertson's best-acted scenes in the series.
There's also a wonderfully nuanced reaction from the actor playing the teacher, as he silently realizes that Lux's attraction to him is very likely the result of what was done to her. He realizes how wrong this affair is before she does. To my recollection, I've never seen the student/teacher affair plot handled that way, with the romantic fantasy suddenly ripped away to expose the sordid, horrifying reasons why this kind of thing happens in real life.
In this segment, Liz talks about arriving at that plot.
Part 11 - LUX lives on
Part 12 - Network overall deal, working on Once Upon a Time and Revenge
Part 13 - The Bitter Questions
Interview with TV writer Liz Tigelaar, creator of "Life Unexpected" - Part 9: Dealing with network notes
Part 1 - Breaking in as an assistant
Part 2 - First Staff Writer Job on "American Dreams"
Part 3 - How Do I Get an Agent?
Part 4 - Selling a Pilot
Part 5 - Personal Themes in Writing
Part 6 - Genesis of "Life Unexpected"
Part 7 - First-Time Showrunner
Part 8 - Developing the second year of LUX
Network notes. Is there anything that a writer dreads more? After all, we've been conditioned to think of everything that went wrong with our favorite shows as being something that was forced on the creators by a meddling network. Specifically in the case of Life Unexpected, it seems that there were concessions that were forced on Liz Tigelaar and her team.
Interestingly, when I asked Liz about the process, she chose to focus on the positive. And in some ways, maybe that's a saner, healthier way to look at it rather than grumble over all the things that got ruined.
Part 10 - Controversial LUX storylines
Part 11 - LUX lives on
Part 12 - Network overall deal, working on Once Upon a Time and Revenge
Part 13 - The Bitter Questions
Part 2 - First Staff Writer Job on "American Dreams"
Part 3 - How Do I Get an Agent?
Part 4 - Selling a Pilot
Part 5 - Personal Themes in Writing
Part 6 - Genesis of "Life Unexpected"
Part 7 - First-Time Showrunner
Part 8 - Developing the second year of LUX
Network notes. Is there anything that a writer dreads more? After all, we've been conditioned to think of everything that went wrong with our favorite shows as being something that was forced on the creators by a meddling network. Specifically in the case of Life Unexpected, it seems that there were concessions that were forced on Liz Tigelaar and her team.
Interestingly, when I asked Liz about the process, she chose to focus on the positive. And in some ways, maybe that's a saner, healthier way to look at it rather than grumble over all the things that got ruined.
Part 10 - Controversial LUX storylines
Part 11 - LUX lives on
Part 12 - Network overall deal, working on Once Upon a Time and Revenge
Part 13 - The Bitter Questions
Interview with TV writer Liz Tigelaar, creator of "Life Unexpected" - Part 8: Developing the second year of LUX
Part 1 - Breaking in as an assistant
Part 2 - First Staff Writer Job on "American Dreams"
Part 3 - How Do I Get an Agent?
Part 4 - Selling a Pilot
Part 5 - Personal Themes in Writing
Part 6 - Genesis of "Life Unexpected"
Part 7 - First-Time Showrunner
And we're finally here. Some of you may remember a long piece I wrote about Life Unexpected when it was midway through its second season. I had really been a fan of the series and its potential during the first season, but upon its return, I couldn't help but feel that some of my favorite aspects of the show had been shunted aside. At the same time, new elements left me... well... disappointed.
So I wrote "An Open Letter to the CW network and Liz Tigelaar," where I detailed a number of my issues. Mostly I laid the blame at the CW's feet for taking a really sweet and original show and trying to force it into a mold akin to several other shows they were already making. Looking at it now, I can't help but notice that this post was longer than my average writing, though perhaps even more blunt than normal.
In case you're wondering, Liz saw that post. In fact, it's probably not unfair to say it played AT LEAST an indirect part in landing me this interview. For a lot of reasons, I wanted to touch on the challeges of season two, the compromises and network-mandated changes that they had to make. Those topics are spread over a few interview segments with the first being this one.
I think this offers an interesting window into the give-and-take of producing a show for network TV. And it's not all bad. Liz also reminisces about her favorite moments from season two.
Part 9 - Dealing with network notes
Part 10 - Controversial LUX storylines
Part 11 - LUX lives on
Part 12 - Network overall deal, working on Once Upon a Time and Revenge
Part 13 - The Bitter Questions
Part 2 - First Staff Writer Job on "American Dreams"
Part 3 - How Do I Get an Agent?
Part 4 - Selling a Pilot
Part 5 - Personal Themes in Writing
Part 6 - Genesis of "Life Unexpected"
Part 7 - First-Time Showrunner
And we're finally here. Some of you may remember a long piece I wrote about Life Unexpected when it was midway through its second season. I had really been a fan of the series and its potential during the first season, but upon its return, I couldn't help but feel that some of my favorite aspects of the show had been shunted aside. At the same time, new elements left me... well... disappointed.
So I wrote "An Open Letter to the CW network and Liz Tigelaar," where I detailed a number of my issues. Mostly I laid the blame at the CW's feet for taking a really sweet and original show and trying to force it into a mold akin to several other shows they were already making. Looking at it now, I can't help but notice that this post was longer than my average writing, though perhaps even more blunt than normal.
In case you're wondering, Liz saw that post. In fact, it's probably not unfair to say it played AT LEAST an indirect part in landing me this interview. For a lot of reasons, I wanted to touch on the challeges of season two, the compromises and network-mandated changes that they had to make. Those topics are spread over a few interview segments with the first being this one.
I think this offers an interesting window into the give-and-take of producing a show for network TV. And it's not all bad. Liz also reminisces about her favorite moments from season two.
Part 9 - Dealing with network notes
Part 10 - Controversial LUX storylines
Part 11 - LUX lives on
Part 12 - Network overall deal, working on Once Upon a Time and Revenge
Part 13 - The Bitter Questions
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Interview with TV writer Liz Tigelaar, creator of "Life Unexpected" - Part 7: First-Time Showrunner
Part 1 - Breaking in as an assistant
Part 2 - First Staff Writer Job on "American Dreams"
Part 3 - How Do I Get an Agent?
Part 4 - Selling a Pilot
Part 5 - Personal Themes in Writing
Part 6 - Genesis of "Life Unexpected"
Though Liz Tigelaar had worked in television for many years, it wasn't until 2010's "Life Unexpected" that she had worked her way up to the coveted position of showrunner. For those who don't know, a showrunner is the person setting the creative direction for the series. They're the final say (except for the network), they hire the writers and directors and it's their vision that everyone works to implement. Usually (but not always) this person is the creator of the show as well.
In this segment, we touch on the development of the long-term arcs in the first season and some of the many things that Liz was faced with during her first year as show-runner. You could probably spend an hour just talking about this element of television production, but Liz's answer here presents an overview of the things she and her writing staff developed during that season.
Part 8 - Developing the second year of LUX
Part 9 - Dealing with network notes
Part 10 - Controversial LUX storylines
Part 11 - LUX lives on
Part 12 - Network overall deal, working on Once Upon a Time and Revenge
Part 13 - The Bitter Questions
Part 2 - First Staff Writer Job on "American Dreams"
Part 3 - How Do I Get an Agent?
Part 4 - Selling a Pilot
Part 5 - Personal Themes in Writing
Part 6 - Genesis of "Life Unexpected"
Though Liz Tigelaar had worked in television for many years, it wasn't until 2010's "Life Unexpected" that she had worked her way up to the coveted position of showrunner. For those who don't know, a showrunner is the person setting the creative direction for the series. They're the final say (except for the network), they hire the writers and directors and it's their vision that everyone works to implement. Usually (but not always) this person is the creator of the show as well.
In this segment, we touch on the development of the long-term arcs in the first season and some of the many things that Liz was faced with during her first year as show-runner. You could probably spend an hour just talking about this element of television production, but Liz's answer here presents an overview of the things she and her writing staff developed during that season.
Part 8 - Developing the second year of LUX
Part 9 - Dealing with network notes
Part 10 - Controversial LUX storylines
Part 11 - LUX lives on
Part 12 - Network overall deal, working on Once Upon a Time and Revenge
Part 13 - The Bitter Questions
Interview with TV writer Liz Tigelaar, creator of "Life Unexpected" - Part 6: Genesis of Life Unexpected
Part 1 - Breaking in as an assistant
Part 2 - First Staff Writer Job on "American Dreams"
Part 3 - How Do I Get an Agent?
Part 4 - Selling a Pilot
Part 5 - Personal Themes in Writing
This next interview clip deals with the origins of Life Unexpected, and so I can understand that those readers unfamiliar with the show might be inclined to skip this clip, but you'd miss out on a fascinating bit of conversation. Here we discuss where Liz takes inspiration, whether it's from her own life and views, and also how she develops and discovers her themes in writing.
Certainly you'll have more appreciation for this if you're already know the show and the characters, but even if you don't, I think you'll be able to keep up. I know I'm always fascinated to learn how much of themselves a writer puts into their characters.
Part 7 - First-Time Showrunner
Part 8 - Developing the second year of LUX
Part 9 - Dealing with network notes
Part 10 - Controversial LUX storylines
Part 11 - LUX lives on
Part 12 - Network overall deal, working on Once Upon a Time and Revenge
Part 13 - The Bitter Questions
Part 2 - First Staff Writer Job on "American Dreams"
Part 3 - How Do I Get an Agent?
Part 4 - Selling a Pilot
Part 5 - Personal Themes in Writing
This next interview clip deals with the origins of Life Unexpected, and so I can understand that those readers unfamiliar with the show might be inclined to skip this clip, but you'd miss out on a fascinating bit of conversation. Here we discuss where Liz takes inspiration, whether it's from her own life and views, and also how she develops and discovers her themes in writing.
Certainly you'll have more appreciation for this if you're already know the show and the characters, but even if you don't, I think you'll be able to keep up. I know I'm always fascinated to learn how much of themselves a writer puts into their characters.
Part 7 - First-Time Showrunner
Part 8 - Developing the second year of LUX
Part 9 - Dealing with network notes
Part 10 - Controversial LUX storylines
Part 11 - LUX lives on
Part 12 - Network overall deal, working on Once Upon a Time and Revenge
Part 13 - The Bitter Questions
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Interview with TV writer Liz Tigelaar, creator of "Life Unexpected" - Part 5: Personal Themes in Writing
Part 1 - Breaking in as an assistant
Part 2 - First Staff Writer Job on "American Dreams"
Part 3 - How Do I Get an Agent?
Part 4 - Selling a Pilot
One recurring theme in Liz Tigelaar's work is that of identity. In this latest segment of my interview with Liz, we discuss the origins of her pilot Split Decision and how exploring that theme led Liz to develop a show that would have followed two different versions of it's lead character's life, with different choices in each reality leading to different outcomes and consequences. In doing so, it would have explored how the choices we make shape who we are.
This is something important for young writers to remember. A show has to be about something. It's best to develop themes that can live below the surface. A superficial exploration of this idea might have just dealt with the gimmick of alternate versions of the same people. It sounds like Liz's intent was to go beyond that and use those realities to explore the characters and what it can really mean to be defined by your actions and your history. There are elements here that resonate with an audience on a personal level. Who among us hasn't wondered how different we'd be had we had or not had a particular experience?
Identity is a theme I deal with in my writing a lot too, and I think I would have liked Liz's take on it because she wouldn't have gone the route of saying "No matter what, this person was always fated to end up this way."
What sort of ideas do you use your writing to explore?
Part 6 - Genesis of "Life Unexpected"
Part 7 - First-Time Showrunner
Part 8 - Developing the second year of LUX
Part 9 - Dealing with network notes
Part 10 - Controversial LUX storylines
Part 11 - LUX lives on
Part 12 - Network overall deal, working on Once Upon a Time and Revenge
Part 13 - The Bitter Questions
Part 2 - First Staff Writer Job on "American Dreams"
Part 3 - How Do I Get an Agent?
Part 4 - Selling a Pilot
One recurring theme in Liz Tigelaar's work is that of identity. In this latest segment of my interview with Liz, we discuss the origins of her pilot Split Decision and how exploring that theme led Liz to develop a show that would have followed two different versions of it's lead character's life, with different choices in each reality leading to different outcomes and consequences. In doing so, it would have explored how the choices we make shape who we are.
This is something important for young writers to remember. A show has to be about something. It's best to develop themes that can live below the surface. A superficial exploration of this idea might have just dealt with the gimmick of alternate versions of the same people. It sounds like Liz's intent was to go beyond that and use those realities to explore the characters and what it can really mean to be defined by your actions and your history. There are elements here that resonate with an audience on a personal level. Who among us hasn't wondered how different we'd be had we had or not had a particular experience?
Identity is a theme I deal with in my writing a lot too, and I think I would have liked Liz's take on it because she wouldn't have gone the route of saying "No matter what, this person was always fated to end up this way."
What sort of ideas do you use your writing to explore?
Part 6 - Genesis of "Life Unexpected"
Part 7 - First-Time Showrunner
Part 8 - Developing the second year of LUX
Part 9 - Dealing with network notes
Part 10 - Controversial LUX storylines
Part 11 - LUX lives on
Part 12 - Network overall deal, working on Once Upon a Time and Revenge
Part 13 - The Bitter Questions
Interview with TV writer Liz Tigelaar, creator of "Life Unexpected" - Part 4: Selling a pilot
Part 1 - Breaking in as an assistant
Part 2 - First Staff Writer Job on "American Dreams"
Part 3 - How Do I Get an Agent?
The Liz Tigelaar interview continues! In this segment, Liz talks about selling her first pilot Split Decision. Unfortunately, she happened to sell it to UPN during the development season where UPN and CW merged, making for much stiffer competition in getting on the air.
Part 5 - Personal Themes in Writing
Part 6 - Genesis of "Life Unexpected"
Part 7 - First-Time Showrunner
Part 8 - Developing the second year of LUX
Part 9 - Dealing with network notes
Part 10 - Controversial LUX storylines
Part 11 - LUX lives on
Part 12 - Network overall deal, working on Once Upon a Time and Revenge
Part 13 - The Bitter Questions
Part 2 - First Staff Writer Job on "American Dreams"
Part 3 - How Do I Get an Agent?
The Liz Tigelaar interview continues! In this segment, Liz talks about selling her first pilot Split Decision. Unfortunately, she happened to sell it to UPN during the development season where UPN and CW merged, making for much stiffer competition in getting on the air.
Part 5 - Personal Themes in Writing
Part 6 - Genesis of "Life Unexpected"
Part 7 - First-Time Showrunner
Part 8 - Developing the second year of LUX
Part 9 - Dealing with network notes
Part 10 - Controversial LUX storylines
Part 11 - LUX lives on
Part 12 - Network overall deal, working on Once Upon a Time and Revenge
Part 13 - The Bitter Questions
Monday, October 1, 2012
Interview with TV writer Liz Tigelaar, creator of "Life Unexpected" - Part 3: "How do I get an agent?"
Part 1 - Breaking in as an assistant
Part 2 - First Staff Writer Job on "American Dreams"
I don't know a professional writer who doesn't get asked this question on a regular basis. Heck, it's one of the questions that I'm asked most often.
"How do you get an agent?"
Our chat with Liz Tigelaar continues as she offers her suggestions and tells us how she got repped.
Part 4 - Selling a Pilot
Part 5 - Personal Themes in Writing
Part 6 - Genesis of "Life Unexpected"
Part 7 - First-Time Showrunner
Part 8 - Developing the second year of LUX
Part 9 - Dealing with network notes
Part 10 - Controversial LUX storylines
Part 11 - LUX lives on
Part 12 - Network overall deal, working on Once Upon a Time and Revenge
Part 13 - The Bitter Questions
Part 2 - First Staff Writer Job on "American Dreams"
I don't know a professional writer who doesn't get asked this question on a regular basis. Heck, it's one of the questions that I'm asked most often.
"How do you get an agent?"
Our chat with Liz Tigelaar continues as she offers her suggestions and tells us how she got repped.
Part 4 - Selling a Pilot
Part 5 - Personal Themes in Writing
Part 6 - Genesis of "Life Unexpected"
Part 7 - First-Time Showrunner
Part 8 - Developing the second year of LUX
Part 9 - Dealing with network notes
Part 10 - Controversial LUX storylines
Part 11 - LUX lives on
Part 12 - Network overall deal, working on Once Upon a Time and Revenge
Part 13 - The Bitter Questions
Interview with TV writer Liz Tigelaar, creator of "Life Unexpected" - Part 2: First Staff Writer Job on "American Dreams"
Part 1 - Breaking in as an assistant
Writing for TV is hard. It takes more than selling a single episode to jump right to staff writer. In this segment, Liz talks about her time as an assistant after writing her first episode and how a "can do" attitude was critical to getting her in the right spot to land her first staff job on American Dreams.
Part 3 - How Do I Get an Agent?
Part 4 - Selling a Pilot
Part 5 - Personal Themes in Writing
Part 6 - Genesis of "Life Unexpected"
Part 7 - First-Time Showrunner
Part 8 - Developing the second year of LUX
Part 9 - Dealing with network notes
Part 10 - Controversial LUX storylines
Part 11 - LUX lives on
Part 12 - Network overall deal, working on Once Upon a Time and Revenge
Part 13 - The Bitter Questions
Writing for TV is hard. It takes more than selling a single episode to jump right to staff writer. In this segment, Liz talks about her time as an assistant after writing her first episode and how a "can do" attitude was critical to getting her in the right spot to land her first staff job on American Dreams.
Part 3 - How Do I Get an Agent?
Part 4 - Selling a Pilot
Part 5 - Personal Themes in Writing
Part 6 - Genesis of "Life Unexpected"
Part 7 - First-Time Showrunner
Part 8 - Developing the second year of LUX
Part 9 - Dealing with network notes
Part 10 - Controversial LUX storylines
Part 11 - LUX lives on
Part 12 - Network overall deal, working on Once Upon a Time and Revenge
Part 13 - The Bitter Questions
Interview with TV writer Liz Tigelaar, creator of "Life Unexpected" - Part 1: Breaking in as an assistant
Liz Tigelaar is a prolific television writer who has been working for over a decade. After getting her start as a writer's assistant on Dawson's Creek, she went on to join the staffs of several successful TV shows, including American Dreams, Kyle XY, What About Brian, Brothers & Sisters, Dirty Sexy Money, Once Upon a Time and Revenge.
She was also the creator and show-runner of the CW's Life Unexpected.
Suffice to say, Liz has the sort of career that most aspiring TV writers dream of having. Currently she's working on ABC's Nashville and also is developing a pilot for Bravo based on the David Duchovney movie The Joneses.
I was lucky enough to interview Liz recently, and the result was an interview that I hope you'll find interesting whether or not you're familiar with her work. All this week I'll be posting interview segments where Liz discusses writing for television, climbing the ladder, and running a show. And don't worry, if you're a fan of Life Unexpected, I took the opportunity to ask Liz about a few things I brought up in this older post of mine.
In this segment of the interview, Liz talks about how she got her start as a writer's assistant, and how that led to her first script assignment in TV, writing a significant episode of Dawson's Creek, the season three episode "Show Me Love." Dawson fans might remember this as the infamous boat-race episode where Pacey and Dawson compete for Joey's affections.
For anyone looking to break into TV, this is a must see!
Part 2 - First Staff Writer Job on "American Dreams"
Part 3 - How Do I Get an Agent?
Part 4 - Selling a Pilot
Part 5 - Personal Themes in Writing
Part 6 - Genesis of "Life Unexpected"
Part 7 - First-Time Showrunner
Part 8 - Developing the second year of LUX
Part 9 - Dealing with network notes
Part 10 - Controversial LUX storylines
Part 11 - LUX lives on
Part 12 - Network overall deal, working on Once Upon a Time and Revenge
Part 13 - The Bitter Questions
Suffice to say, Liz has the sort of career that most aspiring TV writers dream of having. Currently she's working on ABC's Nashville and also is developing a pilot for Bravo based on the David Duchovney movie The Joneses.
I was lucky enough to interview Liz recently, and the result was an interview that I hope you'll find interesting whether or not you're familiar with her work. All this week I'll be posting interview segments where Liz discusses writing for television, climbing the ladder, and running a show. And don't worry, if you're a fan of Life Unexpected, I took the opportunity to ask Liz about a few things I brought up in this older post of mine.
In this segment of the interview, Liz talks about how she got her start as a writer's assistant, and how that led to her first script assignment in TV, writing a significant episode of Dawson's Creek, the season three episode "Show Me Love." Dawson fans might remember this as the infamous boat-race episode where Pacey and Dawson compete for Joey's affections.
For anyone looking to break into TV, this is a must see!
Part 2 - First Staff Writer Job on "American Dreams"
Part 3 - How Do I Get an Agent?
Part 4 - Selling a Pilot
Part 5 - Personal Themes in Writing
Part 6 - Genesis of "Life Unexpected"
Part 7 - First-Time Showrunner
Part 8 - Developing the second year of LUX
Part 9 - Dealing with network notes
Part 10 - Controversial LUX storylines
Part 11 - LUX lives on
Part 12 - Network overall deal, working on Once Upon a Time and Revenge
Part 13 - The Bitter Questions
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
